In that regard Qi you are very religous. Deaf to valid argumentation, patronizing non-believers and repetitive in your claims.

(c): Foremostly, certainty of anything, including the non-existence of God, is not achievable.

There is still relative certainty, and there are some things which we have to take on faith. For example: that we exist; that although we view the world subjectively, we view it accurately enough. Otherwise, we reach an immediate philosophical dead-end which does not even extend as far as solipsism. There is no alternative to this faith.

With this, we can take the likelihood that God exists, and by applying arguments, either increase or decrease this likelihood.

Since philosophy ought to be about real changes in your life, you must say that if the likelihood of something is below a certain point, you are not willing to let it affect your life. (g): Since our time is short, there must also be a threshold of probability which designates that which is so improbable, it is not even worth the effort of debate. (Scientology, telemarketers, girls in your area are waiting to talk to you now, etc.)

If you think the likelihood of the existence of God is below the first level, you are agnostic. If it is below the second level, you are an atheist.


(h), (i): I would put forth some arguments but in (c) you say (h) is impossible.

If you don't accept the terms of the debate then it's a little unfair to chide the participants for not arguing persuasively.

so atheists are religious

atheists here are more anti-religion than anti-theism

And I would say you are more anti-religion than anti-atheism.

Very religious: yes, based on the definition above.

Deaf to valid argumentation: I read arguments, some with valid points, but none with coherence and objectivity from start to finish, unless you think your disparate quotes are a coherent body.

The thread started due to your patronizing remarks about American Christians, myhand. So I thought it'd be fun to examine atheism with an equally critical perspective.

Repetitive: To keep the thread chugging along. Maybe my repetitive claims will somehow manage to inspire you, myhand, to ooffer a valid and coherent argument full of logic, reason, wisdom and science. As it is, you have only provided subjective opinions about American Christians in a game's chat (based on youtube videos and biased articles) and random Google search quotes. If your wisdom is so great, why not share it? Or are you satisfied with what aranka, warflow and wordsworth have already said, and feel there is nothing more to say?

X, who said it is a structured debate? Why not consider it an open discussion?

I am not really anti-religion or anti-atheism, but anti-prejudice. Myhand prejudged American Christians, based on incomplete knowledge and limited experiences in America.

And since he believes atheists are intellectually superior, I would like to know why, because I don't think atheism is a prerequisite to logic, reason, wisdom and science for all individuals or regions.

A simple example. The majority of Americans are Christians. The majority of Western Europeans are not Christians (based on a purely religious definition of 'Christian'). Based on myhand's views, America should have inferior universities and inferior authors, scientists, etc. Is this the case? If not, could Christian beliefs or values have any role in the matter? (For example, the Ivy League schools all started as centers of religious and legal study. Is that relevant?)

Or, is everything America has accomplished due to a constant influx of intellectually superior atheists from Europe? And it is only thanks to their enlightened leadership and guidance that America has achieved anything, despite its simpleminded masses? And Europe did not accomplish as much as it could have in the last 150 years because the Christian establishment limited the intellectually superior atheists?

i don't agree with you that atheists don't think more highly of themselves than religious people, when coming out of church on sundays (i usually run into them after going to the bakery to satisfy my primitive needs for baguettes and chocolate pain), they look at me with pity because i'm going to hell =3

A simple example. The majority of Americans are Christians. The majority of Western Europeans are not Christians (based on a purely religious definition of 'Christian'). Based on myhand's views, America should have inferior universities and inferior authors, scientists, etc. Is this the case? If not, could Christian beliefs or values have any role in the matter? (For example, the Ivy League schools all started as centers of religious and legal study. Is that relevant?)

With regards to the Ivy league they are now all secular foundations with no single ties to any particular religion.

Furthermore if you look closely at prestigious authors and/or professors from the various schools you will see that atheists are more highly presented in those esteemed functions then the general population of the United States:
"Although nearly 37 percent of professors at elite research schools like Harvard are atheist or agnostic. These differences exist because of professors’ backgrounds and inclinations, says Gross. Professors who come from higher socioeconomic classes and are drawn to research over teaching or service—characteristics more common among academics at elite institutions—tend to be less religious." @Faculty faith - Harvard magazine 2008

a) More often than not it is the case, yet most of the time I believe ahteism comes more from less understanding of science, more anti-religous movement.
b) On average I'd say it is true overall. For example a God as pantheism describes would be pretty much the same thing as an atheists description of universe, so at least I don't see any significant practical difference between agnostics and atheists.
c) Yes, that is true, yet this is not an argument by any means. You see, when it comes to God that seems to be the only topic where we state a question like this, with anything else first we doubt, than we think why something might exist (like singularity for example)
d) Yes, that is also true.
e) I'd say a fixed set of shared beliefs = ideology, not religion. I always thought of religion as a theistic solution to sacrum sphere which has practical consequences (like praying or going to church)
f) Yes, absolutely true, although when it comes to a topic where most people on Earth are involved it is natural most of them do not think through every single argument, nor do they have perfect knowledge about the arguments they quote, more often than not they based their knowledge/beliefs upon other people's expertise which is very consistent with modern day practical approach to life itself.
g) That is an exemplification of the fault behind c), meaning that we do not defend the existence of unicorns since there is no empirical proof of their existence, moreover we searched our planet quite thouroughly (someone tell me how to spell that) and it'd be very inconsistent with out world description for unicorns to exist. Observe that little girls despite imagining unicorns while have a great desire for unicorns to exist (similar to most people when it comes to God) they do not bring forth any kind of proof they do.
h) I'll reserve a separate paragraph for that.
i) 1) Yes, that is true, 2) is more debatable. It is "better" only in the sense that you will never be wrong, but for me personally I dislike that passive approach. I used to think along similar lines, but I just came to the conclusion that agnostics in the God vs no God debate are similar to utilitarians in philosophy, they base their world view around a premise that cannot be disproven, which makes any kind of thought irrelevant. For me personally I think I used to be agnostic just because I was too lazy to admit I was an atheist already.

I will try to answer h) by sharing my personal perspective of why I chose to be an atheist, because I think it is as objective as one can get (or at least as I can get). First it is true that there is no conclusive proof for God to exist or not and there will never be in this world. For example if a powerful voice envelopes Earth tomorrow telling us it is the end of days and God is coming down to Earth I wouldn't actually be convinced, I'd think it is much more probable for me to get an acute schisophrenic attack than for God come to Earth. And the word probable is most important here, let us not dwell into a precise definition of what that means, let us just state that people perceive certain things as more and less probable. Based upon that they build their world view and they will believe certain things and they won't believe other things. For example if I say to someone I can make 2 same balls out of one most people wouldn't believe me, since it is inconsistent with their world view, because not only they have never seen it, they think it'd have some very improbable implications. If I say the same thing to a friend from my mathematical studies, they'd say no problem, because they are aware of the Banach-Tarski paradox and they know that we can make such a construction, but what we get out of them will not have any precise mathematical measure, thus not being a paradox at all. Although they came to different conclusions I'd argue they can be both right, since I did not specify what I mean by "make", they use their world "model" to perceive things in a certain way and for some my statement was consistent with that model, for others it was not. And that is the point I'd very much like to stress, that we perceive the whole world in different ways, I'll call them personal models, and they allow us to make judgments upon other things, like perceiving dying from lightning strike as highly improbable.

Now, when we think about it in that way we can apply it to virtually any statement, from "We're out of milk" to "Riemann hypothesis is true". So in my opinion whether God exists or not we choose one of the outcomes (suppose we cross out agnostics out of the equation for the time being) based upon how the idea of God existing is consistent with our personal model. In our ancestors days when people were, well, pretty dumb, they did not understand most phenomena of nature, whether it was sun coming up or birds flying, they needed some sort of explanation. The easiest and most comforting at the same time was the idea of an omnipotent God or Gods, since then people have made many Gods that'd be more/less consistent with their world view. Of course it is obvious now that the less you know/understand about life/people/universe it is easier for you to make God consistent with your world view since there are many more unknown variables for you to put in that one box. Atheism is pretty much a product of 20th century and it is not a surprise since society and science developed most in those days. Science, physics in particular, provided explanations on almost every naturally occuring phenomena so in a sense it provided a decent substitution for God. Now, we still needed God to explain the beginning, right? There has to be a beginning, a first cause, right? Actually modern phycics provided an explanation also for that showing us, that the problem was not in "the beginning" but rather our perspective. From how we perceive universe today there does not need to be an objective beginning, time is not a straight line and universes actually can pop out of nothing... and it is consistent with everything else. So modern "physics God" is not a God at all or is a God in pantheistic sense. Now let's go back to a more classical view of God as in Christianity. Now as I said, it is possible for God to exist period, but we can see how our world view affects our judgments of what is and what is not probable. God of Christian's is not really consistent with our current world view, especially since what we know about him is based upon a 2k years old book that was written by people. Examples:
- why would he show up 2k years ago and not now? now we could make a video of Christ and make Jesus could have his own talk-show making it much easier to spread the world of God
- why would he intervene sometimes, but only in a way we cannot perceive?
- why does he need our faith?
- if we are so significant, why would he bother to create billions of trillions of other stars and planets?
- how can we be so significant where our existence as mankind is a fraction of a fraction of percent of the time the universe exists?
etc. etc.
Now of course people have different personal models, some people, actually most people, view the idea of God as probable. They refer to their personal experience as their "proof" of God (on a sidenote, it is irritating when when people survive a major operation they thank God, but when they don't the families curse doctors most of the time). Some people potentially might experience God, I cannot be sure about that, my friend tried to tell me that kind of experience was for him as a "breath of eternity". What makes me a sceptic (and probably most people) is a natural tendency to put less stress on your experience, more on logic and reason, thus attributing those metaphysic experience to the fallacy of our senses.

I hope I was not too all over the place with that, but I wasn't sure how to explain it. Of course agnostics are right, but I don't think that this attitude should be promoted, evolution of man and science was based upon daring thoughts and ideas, not stating something not yet understood does not deserve thinking about. If what I wrote does not provide a reason to be an atheist, it is ok, I have no problem with any kind of theism, I only have problems with practical implications (like parents forbidding transfusions to their children of religious reasons).

p.s. No links included :)

Theists: A wholly other 'god' exists. Most theists personify this 'god' and make it a paternal figure. Theologically, this perception of 'god' is outdated.

Atheists: God does not exist. Many atheists view 'god' as a paternal being, passed down in traditional stories/texts. Atheists ask, "If God is so omnipotent, why _____? If God is so omniscient, why not _____?" Power and knowledge are human qualities. The personified male God of tradition is outdated and many atheists' perspectives are a reflection of this outdated prism. Consequently, many atheists think, "This all too human God that Christians believe in cannot be possible. Therefore, God does not exist." Unfortunately, such atheists use a Christian perspective to understand 'god', which leads them to an all too simplistic conclusion: "A god with human traits does not exist."

Well, I agree. The traditional Christian God does not exist. There is no omniscient and omnipotent man in the sky who passed along a covenant to his chosen people. There is no God who can create children in virgin women. There is no God who appears as burning bushes to speak to prophets when the time is necessary to establish/renew/change the covenant. If the discussion remains at this simplistic, traditional level of interpretation, I'd be an atheist too.

Now, if 'god' were to be reconsidered from a perspective that unites science and theology, then I think it is possible for a wholly other 'god' to exist. But since our multidisciplinary studies of Earth (we haven't even discovered all the species that currently exist on Earth, let alone a 'deity'!) and the universe (we know so little) are still in their infant stages, I think there is no need to be impatient and make a choice based on rather limited knowledge. "Well, it seems to me that science is the best it has ever been. God hasn't been discovered yet. Reason leads me to believe God cannot exist. So I believe God does not exist. End of problem. I am so wise. Christians are foolish sheep."

With respect to passive agnostics: Well, if the theists believe a 'god' exists, will they be very motivated to discover how and why? Their sacred books already tell them these answers and most theists are rather satisfied with what tradition says. What about atheists? If they have already concluded that 'god' does not exist, will they be especially motivated to discover something they already think does not exist? I think the agnostics would be the most active.

Isn't that "other God" you are talking about just a pantheistic God I mentioned? I don't think any rational atheist would be against it since there is very little practical difference between this and atheism, it pretty much can be summed up in the sentence "you can view everything as a miracle or nothing", it's a matter of choice.

If you say that we know so little about universe it really does not feel right, considering what are our experimental possibilities the evolution of physics in last 100 years is astonishing, you can sacrifise years of your time understanding it and still be amazed. Also God cannot be discovered by definition, at least not in the common sense, you cannot discover God in the way you discover black hole. As far as motivation goes, atheists always choose to be atheists based on similar thinking as the scientific method dictates, and scientific method always promotes curiosity and position in which you can change your mind. I do think if we come up with evidence that might support the existence of God, many atheists might change their mind, I just said that the current state of human knowledge and experience points towards atheism.

Also I did not read the discussion before, are you an atheist or not? If you are agnostic you can see by the discussion we are currently having, a curious agnostic like you and an atheist like me do not differ in practical sense, we both make very similar arguments and are open towards discussion, there is hardly any point in which we would disagree on.

Common traits I've noticed about most atheists:

- disrespectful towards Christianity and Christians
- view religion through a framework that is very much shaped by Christianity (similar logos, opposing conclusions)
- ignore the fact that our Western cultures are inextricably linked to Christianity, making all Westerners part or fully
Christian from a purely cultural perspective

I find people with the above traits to be infantile atheists who lack humanity and historical and philosophical perspective.

A while ago I decided, after decades of ambivalence and doubt, to "own" my identity and heritage as a Christian. Still, I appreciate ambiguity. I respect and empathize with atheists and agnostics, as well as those who are "spiritual-but-not-religious." I care about beauty, goodness, mercy and redemption. I value the Arts, Justice, fairness and equality, good food, good music, and good friends.

Qi, based on your above statements, I conclude you are not a agnostic Christian, but purely agnostic. A Christian is someone who is a disciple of Christ (hence the name Christian), which you are not. Agreeing that Western cultures are inextricably linked to Christianity does not make you a Christian, only faith onto Christ does.

Based Based on what qi is saying i will think he is a deist.

if there is a god and he didnt come tell us then how do we know anyway?

Carl

---

First of all your claim that Physics can explain almost everything. Except the begining, which you explain away by saying the universe can just pop out of nothing, huh? Allow me to misquote Einstien

* the more we know the more we realize we don't know

---

*Science is a long way from explaining everything and often times science and technology fail us on a huge level in unforseen ways.* More people are killed each year from superbug infections contracted in hospitals and malpractice than all the people killed by scientology idiots, neglecting their sick.

---

Now to your point about Jesus picking the wrong century to appear, because he could have come now and , had an interactive website , and appear on the David Letterman show. You admitted you world not trust yourself to believe if Jesus appeared in the sky speaking with a thunderous voice. So how many non-believers would believe a self-proclaimed messiah preforming miracles on late-nite TV? none I suspect.

---

Which brings us back to Faith. Let me give you two exhamples from the time of Jesus

---

There were eye-witnesses to Jesus preforming miricles who did not believe. The followers of Jesus came under a death sentence threat. Do not preach that he rose from the dead. Why would they continue to preach under this threat if they knew it was all a sham. And yet they did and the movement spread through the Roman empire like wildfire.

---

The Roman empire was the begining of modern history as we in the west know it. It was the first time all roads were connected and trade flowed back and forth across half the world. Coincidence?, YOU could say that. I would not. I would call it good timing.

Aranka, Robespierre, General Arun, Czechia

---

Education in America has been for sometime under the influence of liberal secular educators who are preaching political correctness over substance. Unless you are a christian , then it is ok to be attacked. It is very hard for an outspoken Christian professor to achieve tenure much less be offered a Chair at a Univ. A professor can preach athiesm all day long , but if one mentions his christian faith he will be drummed out. So I am not suprised at the result: most acidemics and thinkers at the University level are athiestic or agnostic. This is not to say these products of our University system are not smart I am sure they are , but they are biased.

---

I do not doubt that on the High school level in small town america there is a bias toward old fashioned christian values. The avarage small town american sees his world crumbling, and fears change. This does not excuse but simply explain.

---

I have attended different christian churches in both big citys and small towns , catholic and southern baptist, The variety of sermons and emphisis is huge, not all christian preachers are the same. However, in most catholic churches and episcopal churches the sermon goes as followes: We are all saved already; how do we treat our friends, how do we treat strangers , how do we practice our faith. Most Baptist sermons go as followes: We are all sinners, we all need to be saved or recommit our lives to God, let me tell you why and how. now that you know why and how , I invite you to come forward . I also attended several Jesus people revivals and have been to many non-denominational christian churches. More on the southern baptist invitation later. I am sure you will love my logic vs emotion seminar.

atheism can almost only come from independent thinking, whereas religion can only come (without exception this time) from people telling you what to think.
so i'd say that the more educated people are the more likely they are to take their own decision on their beliefs, which would increase the chances of there being atheists.
please don't twist this into meaning that christians are sheep (LOL and god is their Shepard!)... didn't mean that :P
...because that's not at all what i'm saying.

But warlightvet if people did not think for themselves then how come they are several denominations of religions.